On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 22:59:42 GMT, Charles Lasitter
<check.sig4@ddress.com> wrote:

>> What for? Are you after good handling while going sideways through
>> corners on bumpy roads?
>
>In Providence, Rhode Island, it's the interstates at 70mph ...

Unless you're cornering hard at that speed, unsprung weight won't
count for much.

>> Unsprung weight is important if you're racing on bumpy tracks or
>> rallying in the boondocks. Otherwise chasing after every last
>> pound is hardly worth it.
>
>Is that why Honda did backflips to reduce rotational mass everywhere
>it could in the S2000?

Sure, but they can actually make really significant reductions. Not
just a pound or so, but real weight reduction that only a factory can
manage by careful design.

>I've read elsewhere that reductions in rotational mass play out as
>more "apparent" horsepower. I don't pretend to know myself, that's
>why I ask here, politely.

Yes, that's true, but again, you're not going to notice a pound less.

>> Anyhow, if minimum unsprung weight is a real necessity, go find
>> some magnesium wheels and never mind the tires.
>
>I understand that you should be ready to clean and polish them every
>day, too.

Yes, real mag wheels are a race track thing. They can't stand up to
road salt at all for instance.

>I'd ask you again to FOCUS ON THE QUESTION: Diminishing returns in
>unsprung weight, rotational mass, ride and handling.

You're way out on the tapering end of that diminishing return.

>The question is one of where and when additional investments in one
>area don't generate payoffs that would be more easily attained
>elsewhere.

That's precisely where you're at.